Yeah yeah sorry about the thread title. But it's true. Not even saber-rattling. Just ... yeah.
So apparently Pew research studied political affiliation of scientists.
quote:Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans. When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. Among the public, there are far fewer self-described Democrats (35%) and far more Republicans (23%). Overall, 52% of the public identifies as Democratic or leans Democratic, while 35% identifies as Republican or leans Republican.
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1549
Six percent. That's apparently cratered over the course of the Bush years.
thoughts comments ideas theories pithiness?
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Maybe scientists tend to work in the public sector either in education or on research dependent on grants. Perhaps democrats fund these institutions/projects more then republicans.
I've also read that the more formal education someone receives the more likely they will identify as democrats.
I would love to see a study that looks at scientists in the private sector, however if a university education tends to swing the students more liberal, then there is a good chance the results will be consistent. It would still be interesting to see.
Edit: Just finished the article
quote: Majorities of scientists working in academia (60%), for non-profits (55%) and in government (52%) call themselves Democrats, as do nearly half of those working in private industry (47%).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem: Maybe scientists tend to work in the public sector either in education or on research dependent on grants. Perhaps democrats fund these institutions/projects more then republicans.
Yeah there's a huge hunk of scientists who go democrat because of the funding issues, but at the same time there's probably even more that are influenced by a perception of the republican party as one of anti-scientific interests and a defender of pseudoscience.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Indeed. Texas's Republican governor did just choose a creationist as its new chairman of the state board of education, as an example of how a scientist could perceive such a bias.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Maybe scientists tend to work in the public sector either in education or on research dependent on grants. Perhaps democrats fund these institutions/projects more then republicans.
This.
People who live off of other people's taxes tend to be more in favor of taxes. Not a huge surprise.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Its not surprising scientists don't identify as republicans when the republican party mocks science, in many different areas, quite openly.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
As a scientist, I am going to have to disagree with the idea that my fellow scientists are only dem because that is where the funding comes from. I think that the republican party's connection to religious/social issues is a big issue for most scientists (abortion, ssm, etc). In my experience, religious scientists have had to learn to compartmentalize, so even if they personally agree that X is morally wrong, they aren't going to support making X illegal without a more compelling reason. Also, as has been pointed out, the whole ID/creationist tends to upset scientists more then the general population.
Another difference between scientists and general population, scientists are a bit more international. I have never worked in a lab where there was not at least one person from another country. Which means that when we discuss health care, in almost every conversation someone says "my home country did public health care and it was so much better then this system".
Or, of course, it could just be that people trained trained to think logically and required to have a basic level of intelligence can't help but despise the republican party. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Maybe scientists tend to work in the public sector either in education or on research dependent on grants. Perhaps democrats fund these institutions/projects more then republicans.
This.
People who live off of other people's taxes tend to be more in favor of taxes. Not a huge surprise.
:sigh: Yes, please, simplify and reduce, reduce and simplify.
quote: Or, of course, it could just be that people trained trained to think logically and required to have a basic level of intelligence can't help but despise the republican party. [Wink]
Ding ding ding ding!
There's the little part about the democratic party being willing to listen to opposing viewpoints that makes it appealing internationally, and to a broad base of people who agree not necessarily on the finer points of the issues, but on the way that government should function.
The democratic party tries to be the supporter of individual freedoms and creativity, while the Republican party remains the gatekeeper against social, cultural and economic transgressions- whether it be their intent at this point, or not, that's their appeal at this moment.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Wow. You just gave me whiplash, Orincoro.
As a liberal, government-funded, Democratic scientist, I can tell you that nobody in my institution votes D just because Democrats are "willing to listen to opposing viewpoints," or that they're the "supporter of individual freedoms and creativity." Those are certainly important factors (or at least, the Dems' relatively less-horrible track record in those areas is an important factor), but the honest truth is that Democratic support for government research funding plays a big part as well. For quite a few scientists, it does boil down to "that's where the money comes from," in much the same way as high-powered executives vote for Republicans because, for them, that's where the money comes from. For many others, including myself, it's because we believe that there are certain things that government agencies are better equipped to make funding decisions for than the free market (heresy in this "Going Galt" age, I know), and basic science is one of them. In other words, a big part of why I support the Democrats is because I trust the scientific minds running the NIH and NSF more than I trust those at Merck or Pfizer.
Again, lots of other factors come into play - Republicans' disregard for scientific ethics and transparency during the past Administration being a critical one, as well as the aforementioned anti-science/ anti-intellectual bent of the modern American right. But reducing the issue to "Democrats are open-minded and Republicans are troglodytic thugs" is as much an oversimplification as katharina's post.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Wow. You just gave me whiplash, Orincoro.
Agreed.
I find it fascinating how Democrats and Republicans alike often cite open-mindedness and intelligence as defining features of their party. I would be tempted to claim that the truly open-minded and intelligent wash their hands of both, but then I'd be falling into the same trap. Plus I've known too many people of every association who would belie that claim. There's simply no correlation to be found in that regard.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
While I think Dems and Republicans are are mostly composed of average people of average openmindedness, I also think the the Democratic party actually defines itself by that attribute. Republicans certainly would want their members to be openminded because it's an all around useful features to have, but not because it specifically has to do with their core values.
And when you're looking at core values - conservatism is, theoretically, about maintaining the status quo. Liberalism is theoretically about trying new ideas in an attempt to discover better ways of doing things.
The latter is fundamentally ABOUT being open minded. The former is not. And think both parties have their share of intelligence and stupidity, I think that systematically trying new ideas and progressing towards a better society requires more intelligence (in order to recognize when ideas are working and need to be changed) than sticking to the status quo.
That said, this is what Liberalism and Conservatism are theoretically about, as opposed to what the Democrats and Republicans actually stand for. (I've actually been leaning away from certain 'liberal' ideas on regulation lately simply because I think they don't work, but I'm still opposed to the thought process that leads many conservatives to the same conclusions).
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Coincidentally, two of the advisers I had at NIST were Republicans.
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Wow. You just gave me whiplash, Orincoro.
Agreed.
I find it fascinating how Democrats and Republicans alike often cite open-mindedness and intelligence as defining features of their party. I would be tempted to claim that the truly open-minded and intelligent wash their hands of both, but then I'd be falling into the same trap. Plus I've known too many people of every association who would belie that claim. There's simply no correlation to be found in that regard.
Truth.
quote:Perceptions of scientists are virtually the same as those of medical doctors and just above those of engineers.
--j_k
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: And when you're looking at core values - conservatism is, theoretically, about maintaining the status quo. Liberalism is theoretically about trying new ideas in an attempt to discover better ways of doing things.
The latter is fundamentally ABOUT being open minded. The former is not.
That's one way of defining the core values. Somebody with a different perspective might define conservatism as being theoretically about keeping the government out of one's personal affairs, and liberalism as being theoretically about micromanaging people's lives for their own good.
By that definition, it's the conservatives who are fundamentally ABOUT accepting multiple viewpoints, and the liberals who are fundamentally narrow-minded. One might say that insisting on a more laissez-faire approach encourages innovation, while a top-down approach to reforming society stifles it.
Is this a distortion? To some extent, yes, but no more so than your characterization. I think both pit the better features of one ideology against the worse ones of the other. I think both ideologies, in their ideal forms, are equally concerned with keeping an open mind and are equally intellectually stimulating; and I think both are equally capable of going horribly wrong and mindlessly quashing those with the wrong views or lifestyles.
(As you note, this has little to do with Republicans vs. Democrats, which don't map onto those other two groups very well.)
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: People who live off of other people's taxes tend to be more in favor of taxes. Not a huge surprise.
There are many factors at play here. Pretending it's so simple may be a good way to reduce your cognitive dissonance, but isn't good for much else.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I thought this part is worth keeping in mind.
quote:Most Americans profess a belief in God (83%), and 82% are affiliated with a religious tradition. Scientists are different. Just a third (33%) say they believe in God, while 18% say they believe in a universal spirit or higher power and 41% say they don’t believe in either. Just less than half of the scientists interviewed (48%) say they have a religious affiliation, while as many (48%) say they are not affiliated with a religious tradition.
The Republican party essentially discards anyone with non-religious beliefs. It is not hard to see how a party that produces people like Palin, Bush, or Romney might not do too well at attracting the non-religious which would give a huge handicap for 1/2 of the demographic already.
quote:Originally posted by lem: ...
I would love to see a study that looks at scientists in the private sector, however if a university education tends to swing the students more liberal, then there is a good chance the results will be consistent. It would still be interesting to see.
Edit: Just finished the article
quote: Majorities of scientists working in academia (60%), for non-profits (55%) and in government (52%) call themselves Democrats, as do nearly half of those working in private industry (47%).
If you look at the chart, there is another tidbit worth mentioning. In the industry, only 10% of scientists are republicans up from 6%. In fact, government and academic are at 7% and 5% which are probably within the error margin. It is the NGO scientists which really bring down the average at 3%.
So whatever "tax-effect" would seem fairly minimal and concentrated in NGOs when compared with the private sector scientists.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: And when you're looking at core values - conservatism is, theoretically, about maintaining the status quo. Liberalism is theoretically about trying new ideas in an attempt to discover better ways of doing things.
The latter is fundamentally ABOUT being open minded. The former is not.
That's one way of defining the core values. Somebody with a different perspective might define conservatism as being theoretically about keeping the government out of one's personal affairs, and liberalism as being theoretically about micromanaging people's lives for their own good.
By that definition, it's the conservatives who are fundamentally ABOUT accepting multiple viewpoints, and the liberals who are fundamentally narrow-minded. One might say that insisting on a more laissez-faire approach encourages innovation, while a top-down approach to reforming society stifles it.
Is this a distortion? To some extent, yes, but no more so than your characterization. I think both pit the better features of one ideology against the worse ones of the other. I think both ideologies, in their ideal forms, are equally concerned with keeping an open mind and are equally intellectually stimulating; and I think both are equally capable of going horribly wrong and mindlessly quashing those with the wrong views or lifestyles.
(As you note, this has little to do with Republicans vs. Democrats, which don't map onto those other two groups very well.)
While I kinda see your point, I don't think there was anything unfair about my characterization. I wasn't attempting to put a value judgement on the status quo or a hypothetical progressive future. And "Status Quo" vs "Change" are pretty much the textbook definitions of Conservative vs Liberal. What that actually means in practice depends entirely on what era you're in and what people consider the traditional/status quo to be.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:conservatism is, theoretically, about maintaining the status quo
See for me conservatism is not about simply keeping things as we found them. Rather it's a recognition that time has a refining effect on ideas, and that many concepts have proven their nature time and time again, and as such should be adhered to more strongly than the wisdom of the day.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Follow the money. It explains everything.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Wow. You just gave me whiplash, Orincoro.
Agreed.
I find it fascinating how Democrats and Republicans alike often cite open-mindedness and intelligence as defining features of their party. I would be tempted to claim that the truly open-minded and intelligent wash their hands of both, but then I'd be falling into the same trap.
You assume I'm a democrat. I'm not a democrat.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Follow the money. It explains everything.
Inasmuch as I agree with that, there are a thousand ways of doing so. That's why whatever their latest claims are, republicans and democrats alike use a mix of socialism and free market economics that are only different in breed, not species. Every important question on either side of the aisle still involves money.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Follow the money. It explains everything. "
Which is obviously why NGO's had the lowest percentage of scientists who are republicans.
You don't think the republican parties attitude towards climate change, creationism, stem cell research, and the scientists and science associated with those issues and a host of other issues has any bearing on this?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:conservatism is, theoretically, about maintaining the status quo
See for me conservatism is not about simply keeping things as we found them. Rather it's a recognition that time has a refining effect on ideas, and that many concepts have proven their nature time and time again, and as such should be adhered to more strongly than the wisdom of the day.
Meh, you're just describing wisdom. The republican party, perhaps not the epitome of "conservatism," is about maintaining the status quo against mounting losses. There are a hell of a lot of things about the democratic party that I consider wiser, and in fact more conservative than the republican party.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Orincoro: You're right the Republican party does not embody the principles of conservatism right now. I don't think I am describing wisdom, I too think there are many elements to the Democratic platform that are more wise than the Republican, but conservatism prides itself on recognizing principles that have always worked, and sticking to them, even when new thinking seems to cast doubt on them.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Meh, you're just describing wisdom. The republican party, perhaps not the epitome of "conservatism," is about maintaining the status quo against mounting losses. There are a hell of a lot of things about the democratic party that I consider wiser, and in fact more conservative than the republican party.
Actually I think his characterization was pretty fair. Conservatism isn't (or doesn't have to be) blindly keeping every single facet of existence the same, just the things that you consider good. I don't think there are many people who are completely happy with every single aspect of society.
In D&D terms, it might be accurate to say Conservatism is about Wisdom (relying on things we've already learned from experience) and Liberalism is about Intelligence (learning, studying and reacting to new ideas).
Granted, I probably lose 13 arbitrary credibility points for using D&D terms to explain politics.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Granted, I probably lose 13 arbitrary credibility points for using D&D terms to explain politics.
If you used D&D in the presence of of the 18-32 demographic than no, any older and yes perhaps. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Orincoro: You're right the Republican party does not embody the principles of conservatism right now. I don't think I am describing wisdom, I too think there are many elements to the Democratic platform that are more wise than the Republican, but conservatism prides itself on recognizing principles that have always worked, and sticking to them, even when new thinking seems to cast doubt on them.
Are we talking about the buzz words the republicans have been using, like "founding principles?" Because a lot of that crap seems to be getting conjured out of the air to fit with the Republican needs of the day, which have little to do with principles and a lot more to do with lifestyle, economics, etc. I only accuse neocons of this because they are the most buzzword happy these days ("buzzword" not being the same as "slogan").
I mean, in the regard you're discussing, conservatism is a-political. It's about doing what is proven to work, at it's base. In that sense neither major party really plays by the rules- they both cherry pick or reinterpret "principles" in order to justify the needs of the day, recasting them as updates of a model that works, ie, republican deregulation and government support of big business is supposed to be "allowing" the free market to take care of everything... except they "help" the free market, thus rendering it *not* free.
Now, to be truly conservative, I think it's true that one need only be wise. Conservatism on a certain level has no hard-line exclusion of any practice or belief. Whereas the modern day conservative movement in America is all about hard-line exclusions and rewriting the past to fit with the current model- a remarkably "liberal" take on reality, if you will excuse the parlance. Dems are not much better about this, but have been dominated by thinkers who have avoided these hard line stances, to their political and ideological benefit.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Follow the money. It explains everything.
Maybe scientists hate stealing money from poor people.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I hardly think money explains everything...but it seems equally foolish to me to reject completely the idea that rational self-interest - supporting the party much more likely to support you - is a non-factor as well.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well if those poor people would just pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and stop wanting quality education, medical care, housing, food, clean air, affordable energy, emergency services, travel, immigration, jobs, the right to vote, etc, then there would be no problems! Those damn poor people! Haven't they got bootstraps to tug on?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I hardly think money explains everything...but it seems equally foolish to me to reject completely the idea that rational self-interest - supporting the party much more likely to support you - is a non-factor as well.
While I do agree, I think also that the appearance of support as quid pro quot also follows from the appeal of a particular party's agenda in non-financial terms. For instance, if a certain ethnic population supports a certain party because that party was its champion 50 years ago, it won't be entirely surprising that that party maintains an agenda advantageous to that group- but what really came first there, the chicken or the egg? Just as the financial side can affect your decision, it's not like anybody sits down with an economic prospectus from each party and says, "ok, which party will give me an economic advantage?" Either party has the potential to enhance the success of an individual in some cases, but actually predicting that, and voting based on it? I know everybody believes that this happens a lot, but I suppose I don't buy that people are so credulous or hopeful about results in that way. Isn't a more general sort of "what's good for everyone is good for me" attitude? I know republicans who feel like that the same as I know democrats who do- it just comes down, at least when they talk about it, to how success for everyone can be achieved.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Once there was a Republican graduate student in this physics department. (Being a foreigner, by the way, I do not vote and thus can view the petty factional squabbles of the natives with Olympian detachment.) He failed his qualifying exam and went away to be an engineer, or some such, presumably drowning his disgrace in liquor. From this I conclude that Republicans simply are not suited to be scientists.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Which is exactly why no one concludes you are a scientist KoM.
Hobbes Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... See for me conservatism is not about simply keeping things as we found them. Rather it's a recognition that time has a refining effect on ideas, and that many concepts have proven their nature time and time again, and as such should be adhered to more strongly than the wisdom of the day.
Hmmmm,for me it really is about keeping things how we found them Witness how the terms are applied here in this example:
quote:Kidnap rings and factory owners were operating under the noses of the police and party authorities, or even with their collusion. Liberals say only a move to democracy in some form will make officials accountable.
Conservatives call for a reversion to state control of industry and, in particular, an end to the poison of foreign political ideas such as "democratic socialism".
Drawing lines through single data points has a long and honoured history in the social sciences. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
By my calculations, the intervals between snarky KoM posts will soon reduce to a fraction of a second. By this time tomorrow, he will have made over 400 million snarky posts.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Follow the money. It explains everything.
Yes and no.
Your original statement about people living off other people's taxes, if taken literally, would apply to every single person in the country. It's one of those statements that sounds nice and means almost nothing in its original form.
Someone a middle class white collar job gets a huge government subsidy in the form of cheap fuel and food, which is a mix of Republicans and Democrats if you follow the source of those subsidies to their backers. We all live other people's taxes, some just do it far more directly than others, and yet we don't all vote in ways that protect this status quo.
Likewise I don't think all voting is made solely on the basis of money. Part of the reason I support Democrats over Republicans is their dedication (if you want to give them the benefit of the doubt) to research and science, and Republicans' serious turn against science during this decade, and while I'm currently a student pursuing a career in academia, that has nothing to do with my support.
It's a factor for them, for sure. It's not the factor automatically however.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If you follow the money on a federal level, it seems like the strongest blue states should be for limited taxation while the strongest red states should be for increased taxes, because the blue states put out more money than they take in and many red states take in much more federal money than they pay in federal taxes.
Things are maybe more complex than that. Which, actually illustrates what I think might be one of the important factors in this. It's no accident that the party base of the Republican party is called by at least one conservative commentator, "The party of the stupid". While playing to this base, GOP politicians often use the same sort of simplistic, obviously wrong if you actually look at it, but sounds good/plays to people's prejudices statements as "Follow the money. It explains everything".
I know a lot of scientists. I'm a semi-pro myself. You better believe that funding plays a part in how they see the world (even when they think that they are impartial). But I know very few scientists who don't think that what they are doing is not vitally important work. On a wider scale, nearly all of them believe that scientific thought is, in and of itself, extremely important.
If you look at the extreme anti-science/anti-smart people bent that the GOP has taken through the Bush years and the McCain/Palin campaign, obviously scientists were very unhappy with having funding for their projects cut, but even scientists who saw their funding increased during this time and those who don't get any money from the government sources were incredibly critical of the Republican party's stance on science, and, in many cases, their embrace of really simplistic, stupid thinking.
It's really hard to convey the disgust that people who are true believers in the idea that the pursuit of scientific knowledge is the way to move the human race forward has towards, for example, crowds that will cheer Sarah Palin's complaints about "Why are we studying fruit flies anyway?"
And, as I said, scientists who weren't themselves affected by GOP cuts on spending on science were still upset about them, because they think that funding science is really good idea.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Follow the money. It explains everything.
Hardly.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Maybe scientists hate stealing money from poor people.
Then they wouldn't support the party that invented the regressive payroll taxes.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I hardly think money explains everything...but it seems equally foolish to me to reject completely the idea that rational self-interest - supporting the party much more likely to support you - is a non-factor as well.
There is no place for your nuance here!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
katharina: yes, because among Democrats totally isn't where the only politically meaningful support to make those taxes progressive is nowadays. Indeed, only those are who are totally in support of every single measure promoted by a party throughout that party's entire history of existence would ever join one.
And I assume you allow money to dictate your own politics, since you assume it in others?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Point of Order.
One theory suggests that "Research Scientists" are Democratic because that is the people who fund them.
However it is the Republicans who are the strong defense party. It is they who want to spend billions on things such as "Star Wars" missile defense and the newest tanks, planes, and equipment. They are the ones who most heavily finance research science.
So if I am a physicist, I'd want the Republican's in power to pay for my newest way to make things go boom. If I were a mathematician, I'd want the Republican's paying for me to create algorithms for computer viruses. Etc. etc.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... See for me conservatism is not about simply keeping things as we found them. Rather it's a recognition that time has a refining effect on ideas, and that many concepts have proven their nature time and time again, and as such should be adhered to more strongly than the wisdom of the day.
Hmmmm,for me it really is about keeping things how we found them Witness how the terms are applied here in this example:
quote:Kidnap rings and factory owners were operating under the noses of the police and party authorities, or even with their collusion. Liberals say only a move to democracy in some form will make officials accountable.
Conservatives call for a reversion to state control of industry and, in particular, an end to the poison of foreign political ideas such as "democratic socialism".
There's a song in the musical 1776 called "Cool, Cool, Considerate Men" when it was played for President Nixon at the White House, a staffer asked the director to skip that song, as it contains lyrics that are obvious jabs at conservatism, such as this gem,
quote:To the right, ever to the right
Never to the left, forever to the right
We have gold, a market that will hold
Tradition that is old, a reluctance to be bold.
The song is also lead by character John Dickinson, who is essentially the embodiment of anti-independence sentiment in the musical.
The definition of conservatism is by no means concrete, but if an intelligent viewing of "liberalism" indicates an acceptance of progressive thought, I think the counter argument for conservatism is an enthusiasm for ideas that stand the test of time.
Nobody says that liberals, "accept only ideas that are new" so in same token, conservatism shouldn't be, "believe only in keeping everything exactly the same."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:So if I am a physicist, I'd want the Republican's in power to pay for my newest way to make things go boom. If I were a mathematician, I'd want the Republican's paying for me to create algorithms for computer viruses.
You'd want the Republican's what in power? Genitives generally take an object.
Apart from this, this would be an interesting test of the extent to which funding explains the finding. I wonder what would happen if the sample was limited to DARPA-funded researchers?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Follow the money. It explains everything.
The problem with gross oversimplifications like this is that they open the field for gross dismissals.
Eg: follow the money, you say? hmm, ok, I guess this shows that only Democratic policies have shown themselves capable of maintaining scientific progress in this country!
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Maybe scientists tend to work in the public sector either in education or on research dependent on grants. Perhaps democrats fund these institutions/projects more then republicans.
This.
People who live off of other people's taxes tend to be more in favor of taxes. Not a huge surprise.
Correct, because the other party never raises taxes, right? Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
It would be facile to suggest there's no incentive for those who survive off of government grants to support the party under which more such grants are given.
But it would be wrongheaded to imply that those who receive government funding live high on the hog as a result, or that they give little back for what they gain.
And it would be incredibly foolish to ignore that anti-intellectualism and misuse or ignoring of science has had a big place at the Republican table for about three decades.
And unless one is willing to have one's own principles presumed to convey nothing more than self-interest, it would be unwise and ungenerous to make such an assumption about a massive number of people one has never met.
[ July 12, 2009, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Much as I think the statement was wrong, I think we've done quite enough to demonstrate why the "follow the money" post was not entirely accurate.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Second everything Sterling said.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... The definition of conservatism is by no means concrete, but if an intelligent viewing of "liberalism" indicates an acceptance of progressive thought ...
For me though. It doesn't. Maybe you could say that about "progressives", but not really for "liberals." Liberals are more about, well, liberty which is why you find the position of conservatives and liberals kinda reversed in China. The liberals are still championing liberty and the conservatives are conservative relative to the recent history of the CCP being in power.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... The definition of conservatism is by no means concrete, but if an intelligent viewing of "liberalism" indicates an acceptance of progressive thought ...
For me though. It doesn't. Maybe you could say that about "progressives", but not really for "liberals." Liberals are more about, well, liberty which is why you find the position of conservatives and liberals kinda reversed in China. The liberals are still championing liberty and the conservatives are conservative relative to the recent history of the CCP being in power.
Indeed, and in China about 50 years ago, the conservatives wanted more democracy, and the liberals wanted more totalitari...err socialism.
BTW I'm rereading Life and Death in Shanghai, and for some reason I can't stop thinking, "I wish Blayne would read this book." It's kind of stupid.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmmm, see it doesn't really work that way. If I understand the period to which you're referring to liberals are effectively non-existent.
Forgive my quoting Wikipedia but:
quote:Liberalism was to suffer in the wake of the immense challenges China faced from Japanese militarism and the impact of the Communist movement. By the 1930s many of the younger generation felt that only radical, authoritarian doctrines could save the country. The Guomindang or Nationalist party absorbed a good deal of Fascist doctrine and practice. Liberalism increasingly seemed to serve as a forlorn "third force", able only to admonish authoritarian regimes of the Left and Right.
The ascendancy of Mao Zedong and the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949 brought the liberal impulse to its lowest level. Ideological witchhunts were organized against the (real or imaginary) followers of Hu Shi, and their values were ceaselessly derided as bourgeois delusions which could only weaken the nation.
With the collapse of Mao's ideology on his death, seeds of regeneration which had lain dormant gradually came to life. Liberal ideals like intellectual freedom, the separation of powers, civil society and the rule of law were reexamined in the light of the destruction wrought by the Communist party ...
In other words, liberals are effectively killed both outside the party and inside the party. I don't even know how useful a term like "conservatives" is in the chaos during the early republic.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm:
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Maybe scientists tend to work in the public sector either in education or on research dependent on grants. Perhaps democrats fund these institutions/projects more then republicans.
This.
People who live off of other people's taxes tend to be more in favor of taxes. Not a huge surprise.
Correct, because the other party never raises taxes, right?
Wouldn't "people who live off of other people's taxes" include a lot more than government sponsored scientists? Fire fighters, police, the army, navy, all the military and the people who supply the military, most government workers, and everyone who holds a governmental office, most of the people who work for people that hold office...
We should really be winning more elections.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
boots, your common sense is not welcome here.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Drawing lines through single data points has a long and honoured history in the social sciences.
I think it's graph envy.
A philosopher professor I once had admitted it, saying there was no way for him to graph to lines and declare the answer was where they intersect. Of course, I haven't found an answer where two lines intersect in a very long time, but the idea is there.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I've got a problem with how they selected their "scientists"
The fine print says that they "scientists" were taken from a random sampling of 2,553 members of the "american association for the advancement of science" the "world's largest general scientific society"
I'm unclear as to whether they included engineers as scientists or not. I don't see them making a lot of other distinctions between "pure" and "applied" science.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
In D&D terms, it might be accurate to say Conservatism is about Wisdom (relying on things we've already learned from experience) and Liberalism is about Intelligence (learning, studying and reacting to new ideas).
Granted, I probably lose 13 arbitrary credibility points for using D&D terms to explain politics.
Actually, no.
You lose credibility points for ascribing either Intelligence or Wisdom to either political party.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm now getting even more disgruntled. It isn't that I'd rank myself as a conservative or anything, I probably agree with most of the AAAS views myself. But, in the interest of "science" I'd like to see an unbiased sampling of "scientists".
Yes, the AAAS publishes the Journal "Science" however you could read that journal and even submit papers to that journal and still not belong to the AAAS, which has a clear political statement and agenda on their website.
Those who actually bother joining the AAAS probably agree with a significant amount of their policy goals *before* they join.
Edit: I'm wrong. You "automatically" become a member of AAAS when you subscribe to "Science" the magazine. I still think that might create a selection bias.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:You lose credibility points for ascribing either Intelligence or Wisdom to either political party.
You may note that I said "Conservative" and "Liberal," philosophies that aren't inherently tied to the machinations that make political parties so dumb.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Wouldn't "people who live off of other people's taxes" include a lot more than government sponsored scientists? Fire fighters, police, the army, navy, all the military and the people who supply the military, most government workers, and everyone who holds a governmental office, most of the people who work for people that hold office...
Now that it is established that the survey was really "subscribers to Science that aren't k-12 educators" I think this survey needs to be looked at in a different light.
Sweeping generalizations ahead folks, but I would hazard that many "scientists" working in defense-related industries, are often more politically conservative than their counterparts in non-defense related industries and despite the fact they are being paid by the government, tend to be a lot less taxation friendly than their non-defense industry counterparts.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Those who actually bother joining the AAAS probably agree with a significant amount of their policy goals *before* they join.
Edit: I'm wrong. You "automatically" become a member of AAAS when you subscribe to "Science" the magazine. I still think that might create a selection bias.
If anything this will cause the bias to go the other way. Older scientists will be over-represented in the "I need dead tree copies of Science" group. Younger scientists will likely belong to a university or an institute that has a subscription, so they will read it online only, and not sign up for anything. And it would be quite surprising of younger scientists didn't show the same liberal/conservative split that younger people in general show.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The quoted sampling procedure does seem rather prone to selection bias.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: Older scientists will be over-represented in the "I need dead tree copies of Science" group. Younger scientists will likely belong to a university or an institute that has a subscription, so they will read it online only, and not sign up for anything.
Why do you assume that there are a larger proportion of younger scientists attached to academic institutions? I see no proof of that, beyond the actual student bodies of institutions, and you can't exactly call them scientists just yet. Why would a younger person in the sciences necessarily be working in an academic environment? Most don't- we're talking about doctors, engineers, commercial researchers, government researchers, etc. From your spin on things I get a mental image of the "young scientist" carrying a physics book on a college campus, and an "older scientist" futzing around in his basement with a bunch of beakers and Bunsen burners. Granted, my private image of "scientist" until I was about 20 solely involved the activity of mixing volatile chemicals together, but let's not remain so simplistic.
And I'm not sure if you know how the electronic journal subscription thing works, but subscribing to just a couple of magazines is a whole hell of a lot cheaper than a research subscription to an online database.
I agree the selection criteria are not very good, but that particular reasoning is full of holes a mile wide.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: Younger scientists will likely belong to a university or an institute that has a subscription, so they will read it online only, and not sign up for anything.
*raises hand* I'm one of these. Although I still print in the "dead-tree format." It's not as easy to scribble in pen and highlighter all over my computer screen as it is on paper.
quote:First posted by swbarnes2: And it would be quite surprising of younger scientists didn't show the same liberal/conservative split that younger people in general show.
From my experience there is a clear liberal/conservative split, but I work in atmospheric and climate science, so I don't think that's too surprising.
ETA: Actually, I wouldn't call it a liberal/conservative split at all. That seems to indicate extremes, which is not how I see things here.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Hmmmm, see it doesn't really work that way. If I understand the period to which you're referring to liberals are effectively non-existent.
Forgive my quoting Wikipedia but:
quote:Liberalism was to suffer in the wake of the immense challenges China faced from Japanese militarism and the impact of the Communist movement. By the 1930s many of the younger generation felt that only radical, authoritarian doctrines could save the country. The Guomindang or Nationalist party absorbed a good deal of Fascist doctrine and practice. Liberalism increasingly seemed to serve as a forlorn "third force", able only to admonish authoritarian regimes of the Left and Right.
The ascendancy of Mao Zedong and the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949 brought the liberal impulse to its lowest level. Ideological witchhunts were organized against the (real or imaginary) followers of Hu Shi, and their values were ceaselessly derided as bourgeois delusions which could only weaken the nation.
With the collapse of Mao's ideology on his death, seeds of regeneration which had lain dormant gradually came to life. Liberal ideals like intellectual freedom, the separation of powers, civil society and the rule of law were reexamined in the light of the destruction wrought by the Communist party ...
In other words, liberals are effectively killed both outside the party and inside the party. I don't even know how useful a term like "conservatives" is in the chaos during the early republic.
Yet in the scholarship of the period it was common to refer to the old party liners like Zhou En Lai, Deng Xiao Ping, and Liu Shao Qi as the conservative element, while Mao, Lin Biao, Jiang Qing, and the others in the Gang of Four are referred to as the liberal element. I think radical is a better term, but I don't think you can say that because liberalism is related or comes from the word "liberty" that liberalism then favors liberty. Conservatives often feel like their liberty is being infringed upon by current political developments, the idea of being compelled to pay higher taxes so that the government can fund a universal health care plan to them seems like an attack on liberty.
But I'll agree with you that from 1930-1970ish the concept of left and right got extremely muddled in China.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... Yet in the scholarship of the period it was common to refer to the old party liners like Zhou En Lai, Deng Xiao Ping, and Liu Shao Qi as the conservative element, while Mao, Lin Biao, Jiang Qing, and the others in the Gang of Four are referred to as the liberal element. I think radical is a better term
I haven't really seen them used that way and I think radical is usually more common. I don't think even "conservative" usually gets used all that often for CCP politicians since that would have a similar connotation to traditionalist in that era (or reactionary for that matter).
Again, I usually see the terms used more like this:
quote:The Hundred Flowers campaign was Mao's attempt to rally liberal intellectuals to combat bureaucratism; however, the explosion of criticism of the CCP's power monopoly surprised him. Convinced that liberal intellectuals could never be trusted and were always potential enemies, Mao launched the Anti-Rightist campaign in mid-1957 to punish outspoken liberal intellectuals, who were labelled "bourgeois rights."
quote:... but I don't think you can say that because liberalism is related or comes from the word "liberty" that liberalism then favors liberty. Conservatives often feel like their liberty is being infringed upon by current political developments, the idea of being compelled to pay higher taxes so that the government can fund a universal health care plan to them seems like an attack on liberty.
Thats kind of an American development though. If anything, in modern day China it would be the conservatives that would be in favour of state-run health care and not the liberals. In Canada, health-care was essentially a social democrat platform that was co-opted and supported by liberals by virtue of the two being more compatible than their conservative opposition.
(And it is true, that in the States, liberals have long aligned themselves on the left. However, the point of the Chinese examples, when a society moves far to the left, liberals end up on the right. However, in the Qing era they would be on the "left." This is because unlike the "left/right" or "reformist/conservative" pairs which are mostly relative and context-sensitive, liberal is a term that is more absolute)
quote: But I'll agree with you that from 1930-1970ish the concept of left and right got extremely muddled in China.
Not quite my point, but close.
I think left/right isn't actually that bad in that era. What I think is muddled are divisions such as traditionalists, reactionaries, conservatives, reformists, radicals, etc. All of these are terms that essentially require an agreed upon base-line for what is "older" and what is "newer" which don't really work in that turbulent era.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: Older scientists will be over-represented in the "I need dead tree copies of Science" group. Younger scientists will likely belong to a university or an institute that has a subscription, so they will read it online only, and not sign up for anything.
Why do you assume that there are a larger proportion of younger scientists attached to academic institutions? I see no proof of that, beyond the actual student bodies of institutions, and you can't exactly call them scientists just yet. Why would a younger person in the sciences necessarily be working in an academic environment? Most don't- we're talking about doctors, engineers, commercial researchers, government researchers, etc. From your spin on things I get a mental image of the "young scientist" carrying a physics book on a college campus, and an "older scientist" futzing around in his basement with a bunch of beakers and Bunsen burners. Granted, my private image of "scientist" until I was about 20 solely involved the activity of mixing volatile chemicals together, but let's not remain so simplistic.
And I'm not sure if you know how the electronic journal subscription thing works, but subscribing to just a couple of magazines is a whole hell of a lot cheaper than a research subscription to an online database.
I agree the selection criteria are not very good, but that particular reasoning is full of holes a mile wide.
I think you may be misinterpreting swbarnes's post. In fact, I'm sure of it.
swbarnes is not saying that young scientists are more likely to be in academia than in applied sciences (although given that "young scientist" and "student" are virtually synonymous, this is almost certainly true). He's saying that young scientists, regardless of institutional or corporate affiliation, are likely to be more tech-savvy than their older counterparts, and are therefore more open to using modern online databases to retrieve papers. Such online databases make use of institution-wide subscriptions to journals - for example, if I work at Pfizer, I would access relevant papers via Pfizer's subscription to those papers, rather than a personal subscription. Pfizer almost certainly has a mechanism that allows me access to journals even from home, obviating any need for me to bother subscribing myself. This is standard practice in all modern research institutions, ranging from tiny liberal arts colleges to massive multinational conglomerates.
It has been my experience that older scientists often prefer their dead-tree personal subscriptions (at least to the big journals - Science, Nature, etc), and have the money to pay for them. They are not cheap. In comparison, student/ faculty/ staff scientist access to university or corporate subscriptions is almost always free. Therefore, if a personal subscription to Science is the minimum entry barrier to AAAS membership, you will have far more older scientists than younger ones, because the younger scientists won't even bother to subscribe.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: I've got a problem with how they selected their "scientists"
The fine print says that they "scientists" were taken from a random sampling of 2,553 members of the "american association for the advancement of science" the "world's largest general scientific society"
Ohoho. Good find there.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: It has been my experience that older scientists often prefer their dead-tree personal subscriptions (at least to the big journals - Science, Nature, etc), and have the money to pay for them. They are not cheap. In comparison, student/ faculty/ staff scientist access to university or corporate subscriptions is almost always free. Therefore, if a personal subscription to Science is the minimum entry barrier to AAAS membership, you will have far more older scientists than younger ones, because the younger scientists won't even bother to subscribe.
That would be a fairly easy factor to control for though- you just balance the numbers according to age, and maybe correct for the estimated numbers of scientists working in different industries and their ages.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: Older scientists will be over-represented in the "I need dead tree copies of Science" group. Younger scientists will likely belong to a university or an institute that has a subscription, so they will read it online only, and not sign up for anything.
Why do you assume that there are a larger proportion of younger scientists attached to academic institutions?
I meant to write 'institution', which isn't quite right either, but I bet that industries also get site-wide subscriptions. And I would be shocked if government facilities and hospitals didn't.
quote:From your spin on things I get a mental image of the "young scientist" carrying a physics book on a college campus, and an "older scientist" futzing around in his basement with a bunch of beakers and Bunsen burners. Granted, my private image of "scientist" until I was about 20 solely involved the activity of mixing volatile chemicals together, but let's not remain so simplistic.
Huh?
My "image" of a young scientist is someone who doesn't have the shelf space to store years of Science articles, and who figures they might move once or twice in their career and wouldn't want to move an extra box of books. Science magazine is pretty broad...in any given issue there might only be one article that's in your field, and often, none. Online is searchable, and takes up no space, and if you want to mark up a physical copy of one article, you can print one, instead of having a whole issue of articles, most of which aren't relevant. And if you want detailed specifics on a paper, those probably aren't even in the dead tree version, you'll have to go online anyway.
Most importantly, the "young" scientist is used to doing a great deal of reading on the computer, and has been doing so since adolescence, if not earlier. And they are used to information being mroe or less free, without requiring signing up for anything, or paying for anything.
I'm just saying, I can imagine a post-doc or a grad student who's not making much money, who has to keep up with papers in many other journals too, not bothering with paying for the AAAS (yes, it's a tax write off, but it's still a few hundred dollars), because she can read what articles she wants to read in Science for free at work.
But the guy who's got 20 years of Science probably isn't going to stop his subscription.
So it's going to skew, but I think this skew is going to make the ratio look more Republican than it is.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus: We essentially agree, but I must confess your words smack of intellectualism. Are you sure you aren't a member of "that stinking 9th category" of class enemies, who are "running dogs for the capitalists?"
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
In Mao's China, both of us probably wouldn't last very long.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Maybe scientists tend to work in the public sector either in education or on research dependent on grants. Perhaps democrats fund these institutions/projects more then republicans.
This.
People who live off of other people's taxes tend to be more in favor of taxes. Not a huge surprise.
If there were even a half truth here, one would expect that police officers, military contractors, public school teachers, and farmers would be even more likely to be democrats than scientists. Police officers and public school teachers for example are 100% supported by our tax dollars.
I don't know who this study counted as scientists, but even if they were counting only people with Ph.D's in the physical or life sciences, they would find that the majority are employed in the private sector by companies who do not receive any substantial government grants or contracts.
Use some rational thinking before posting people.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Looks like kmboots beat me to it. At least some one here has enough logical ability to think their way out of an open paper bag.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Honestly, there were like two people tops who posted that opinion, and at least 8 people who have dogpiled on top of each other pointing out how wrong it is, and no one has since argued back. It's got kind of ridiculous.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Looks like kmboots beat me to it. At least some one here has enough logical ability to think their way out of an open paper bag.
PSH. That hole in the top is just how they get you. I'm no sucker!
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm curious to what degree folks of different stripes identify primarily as a member of a party, vs. which find a party aligns with their identity.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: In Mao's China, both of us probably wouldn't last very long.
Probably not, after rereading Life and Death in Shanghai, I really want to read a good biography of Zhou En Lai (周恩來), he's seemed like the sort of person I would have loved to know.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
He usually seems to be cast in a good light in the books* in which he makes an appearance, although I have yet to read a biography on him specifically.
* As the latest example I've read, Trudeau in his memoirs seemed quite fond of him
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Despite Rabbit's as-usual-rude-and-trashy comment, she misses the point. However, she isn't worth the bother of an explanation. If she thinks hard, she might be able to figure out why.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Enlighten us, kat. Some of us aren't capable of thinking at your level.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Despite Rabbit's as-usual-rude-and-trashy comment, she misses the point. However, she isn't worth the bother of an explanation. If she thinks hard, she might be able to figure out why.
So your response is: an as-usual-rude-and-trashy comment.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Eat lead, Samp.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
*parse fail*
oh wait...
Which (one is of us) are worth explanations?
It works as a riddle.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
*raises hand* kat, I'd like an explanation.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
We have reached critical mass, time until thread stasis, 30 minutes.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
(Wouldn't mind an explanation either, although I doubt we'll be getting one for the obvious reason(s?))
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Critial mass is ironically appropriate.
BB, I've got a question for you. Do you see the embracing by the GOP of anti-science/anti-smart people rhetoric and policy that many of us here do?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MrSquicky: describing what the GOP does as a whole is pretty murky work, stating that they act as a completely unified group is not very accurate.
I actually wrote and rewrote what I wanted to say right after the above paragraph, but it kept coming out long winded and wrong. It sufficeth me to say that yes to some extent the GOP has propagated an anti-science/intellectual argument, so as to continue to attract evangelical Christians.
It's causing them to hemorrhage the moderate vote, and I think the party is starting to recognize that their strategy is not very feasible.
----
edit: I came into college a pretty strong Republican, but I voted for Kerry within just a few months. It took another 4 years for me to leave the party.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:describing what the GOP does as a whole is pretty murky work, stating that they act as completely unified group is not very accurate.
Oh, no doubt. Sorry, I didn't mean to make it seem like they were a homogeneous whole.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:describing what the GOP does as a whole is pretty murky work, stating that they act as completely unified group is not very accurate.
Oh, no doubt. Sorry, I didn't mean to make it seem like they were a homogeneous whole.
No offense taken, they aren't *my* party anymore. But I can say I have not seen any attempt to temper the anti-intellectualism that the GOP currently exudes.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
C'mon, folks -- I don't want to lock another thread.
Kat, you're out of line on your comment to Samp, no matter what you think invited it.
Why does it seem so difficult to respond to something without snark? I often struggle to figure out what is desired to be accomplished, other than to lift oneself up or knock someone else down. I rarely if ever (I was going to say never but my memory isn't that good) see it actually improve the level of discourse.
Certain personalities keep clashing, and probably will as long as baggage from previous (years of) threads is kept. I find that to be sad.
Can we return to discussing the subject at hand, instead of to discussing the people discussing the subject at hand?
--PJ
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
If you haven't done it yet, I recommend reading the full report. It is quite interesting.
I think there are a number of misconceptions floating around that ought to be corrected.
Most people join scientific societies because the participate in the conferences and meetings, not for the journals. There are much cheaper and easier ways to get access to the journals, particularly if you have access to a decent University library. If you want to know something about the membership of AAAS, look through the programme for their national meetings. In every division I looked at, the sessions at AAAS were far more public policy / education oriented than typical science conferences I've attended. This is consistent with the stated goals of the society. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the AAAS membership is at least some what biased toward scientists that are interested in science and public policy or science education.
Furthermore, when you get a research grant the money generally doesn't go in your pocket. Typical professors get at most 1 or 2 months of summer salary from grants. The grant money goes to buy instruments and supplies, pay dissemination costs, and pay graduate student research assistants. Government grants actually have a salary cap, which can be a problem for senior professors and particularly medical doctors -- many of them actually have to take a salary cut if they are paid off a research grant.
People don't go into scientific research or education for the money. Very very few people make it above middle class as scientific researchers. If you are scientifically gifted, a career in engineering of medicine will or even patent law will end up being far more profitable than a career as a scientific researcher.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Eat lead, Samp.
Cute!
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem: Majorities of scientists working in academia (60%), for non-profits (55%) and in government (52%) call themselves Democrats, as do nearly half of those working in private industry (47%).
If you look at the chart, there is another tidbit worth mentioning. In the industry, only 10% of scientists are republicans up from 6%. In fact, government and academic are at 7% and 5% which are probably within the error margin. It is the NGO scientists which really bring down the average at 3%.[/QB]
Not many have commented on this.
This shows how scientists who work in the private sector, who DON'T get their money from the government, are still by great majority Democrats, or lean towards Democrats.
So the "People who live off of other people's taxes tend to be more in favor of taxes" argument obviously doesn't hold any water at all.
[ July 16, 2009, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: Tuukka ]
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I was wondering when anyone would notice that. I didn't add the EDIT that long after the initial post. 10 minutes tops. I find it interesting that this is even being argued when the study addresses that very suggestion.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It is not, but at the same time it's pretty worthwhile to have analyzed it enough to have a well-explained rebuttal to the notion.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
While I agree the GOP often uses railing against ivory tower elitism to rouse its base to action, it's interesting to note that neither party uniformly represents scientific opinion. Take, for instance, animal testing. The pew survey showed 93% of scientists supported animal testing, something which is anathema to the Democratic base (or, at least, portions of the Democratic base. I recognize that neither party's "base" is a fundamental, unified opinion bloc). Similarly, scientists are more similar to Republicans than Democrats in their support for nuclear power.
Personally, I believe while the GOP rhetoric (unfortunately) can make scientists feel unwelcome, at least as significant a factor is the culture of higher education in general, and particularly higher science education in our country. Since Kennedy (or perhaps Adlai Stevenson), "fitting in" in college has meant espousing liberal political views. It's very much the same as the "country club effect" on Republicans; to be accepted, you feel pressure to agree with your friends, colleagues, mentors, etc. The result is an increasingly homogeneous population (and one in which both the majority and minority opinion groups become increasingly radicalized).
I don't believe that most scientists are Democrats primarily because of their scientific opinions. I imagine most are Democrats because they support abortion rights, and don't mind gun control, and believe in marriage equality, and... Values they learned and adopted from their cultural milieu. I doubt that if the GOP institutionally condemned creationists and global warming doubters that the party would win back a significant number of those scientists. Even if the party moved rhetorically from populism to meritocratic elitism, I think it would take at least a generation to make significant in-roads with the college-trained scientific population.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: I doubt that if the GOP institutionally condemned creationists and global warming doubters that the party would win back a significant number of those scientists.
And at the same time, the GOP is pretty sure that they can't institutionally condemn creationists and global warming doubters.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok, compromise. Throw out the creationists, keep the global-warming deniers, and I promise I'll vote for the Republicans the next time I get a chance.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I'm not concerned about the overall party affliation of scientists....I am very concerned about one scientist... John HoldrenPopulation Control Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote: I doubt that if the GOP institutionally condemned creationists and global warming doubters that the party would win back a significant number of those scientists.
And at the same time, the GOP is pretty sure that they can't institutionally condemn creationists and global warming doubters.
I don't think they need to throw them out. I think Republican leadership would accomplish as much simply by not making them a cause celebre. I think this is how, to the extent scientists are distinct from the well-educated in general, Democrats solidified their position. Play down the differences (animal rights, nuclear power) and play to the commonalities (global warming).
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
In fairness, I think you would also probably find more concensus in the Democratic party about global warming than you would about either nuclear power or animal testing.
I speculate, though; I admit that I don't have numbers in my back pocket to support that.
ADD: Okay, some fairly recent numbers would appear to support part of my hypothesis, according to some fairly quick-and-dirty Googlin'.
[ July 17, 2009, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I would have guessed that the liberals had found majority support for animal testing but I wasn't so sure about nuke power. I was assuming that the global warming issue plus rising energy costs would have overshot the generational lineage of nuclear distrust.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Plus I've known too many people of every association who would belie that claim. There's simply no correlation to be found in that regard. ![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)